3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies

Case Summary

The Appellant, Nammo, had previously commenced a claim against a number of Defendants, who were participants in the administration of justice in the Province of Alberta. The Defendants applied in two separate Applications to strike the Action against them, which Applications were both granted. In one of the Applications, the Master found that the Pleading failed to disclose a cause of action, and was an abuse of process. Nammo unsuccessfully appealed both Masters’ Decisions to a Justice the Court of Queen’s Bench. The Justice upheld the Masters’ Decisions to strike the Action against many of the Respondents, and dismissed the Action against the remaining Respondents who had applied to the Court for relief at that time. Nammo appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that a Court’s decision to strike a claim is discretionary; further, under Rule 3.68, all or part of a claim can be struck if the commencement document or Pleading discloses no reasonable claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Court of Queen’s Bench Justice did not err in upholding the Master’s decision to strike the claim as against the Respondents, as the Pleading disclosed no reasonable claim, and further, the claim was not brought within the prescribed limitation period set out in the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12. The Court of Appeal also held that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Court of Queen’s Bench Justice, as the Appellant had argued. The Court of Appeal dismissed Nammo’s Appeal.

View CanLII Details